Status of Compassionate, Respectful, and Caring Health Service Delivery: Scoping Review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: A compassionate, respectful, and caring (CRC) health professional is very important for human-centered care, serving clients ethically and with respect, adhering to the professional oath, and serving as a model for young professionals. As countries try to achieve universal health coverage (UHC), quality delivery of health services is crucial. CRC health care is an initiative around the need to provide quality care services to clients and patients. However, there is an evidence gap on the status of CRC health care service delivery. OBJECTIVE: This scoping review aimed to map global evidence on the status of CRC health service delivery practice. METHODS: An exhaustive literature review and Delphi technique were used to answer the 2 research questions: "What is the current status of CRC health care practices among health workers?" and "Is it possible for health professionals, health managers, administrators, and policy makers to incorporate it into their activity while designing strategies that could improve the humanistic and holistic approach to health care provision?" The studies were searched from the year 2014 to September 2020 using electronic databases such as MEDLINE (PubMed), Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Hinari, and the World Health Organization (WHO) library. Additionally, grey literature such as Google, Google Scholar, and WorldWideScience were scrutinized. Studies that applied any study design and data collection and analysis methods related to CRC care were included. Two authors extracted the data and compared the results. Discrepancies were resolved by discussion, or the third reviewer made the decision. Findings from the existing literature were presented using thematic analysis. RESULTS: A total of 1193 potentially relevant studies were generated from the initial search, and 20 studies were included in the final review. From this review, we identified 5 thematic areas: the status of CRC implementation, facilitators for CRC health care service delivery, barriers to CRC health care delivery, disrespectful and abusive care encountered by patients, and perspectives on CRC. The findings of this review indicated that improving the mechanisms for monitoring health facilities, improving accountability, and becoming aware of the consequences of maltreatment within facilities are critical steps to improving health care delivery practices. CONCLUSIONS: This scoping review identified that there is limited CRC service provision. Lack of training, patient flow volume, and bed shortages were found to be the main contributors of CRC health care delivery. Therefore, the health care system should consider the components of CRC in health care delivery during in-service training, pre-service training, monitoring and evaluation, community engagement, workload division, and performance appraisal.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,021 | 0,088 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,023 | 0,026 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,009 | 0,006 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,005 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».